What’s Wrong (and Right) with “Relatability”
Derek, Matt, and Alastair discuss whether "relatability" really is a "scourge."
To appreciate “King Lear”—or even “The Catcher in the Rye” or “The Fault in Our Stars”—only to the extent that the work functions as one’s mirror would make for a hopelessly reductive experience. But to reject any work because we feel that it does not reflect us in a shape that we can easily recognize—because it does not exempt us from the active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy—is our own failure. It’s a failure that has been dispiritingly sanctioned by the rise of “relatable.” In creating a new word and embracing its self-involved implications, we have circumscribed our own critical capacities. That’s what sucks, not Shakespeare.
So said Rebecca Mead in her widely-read piece on “relatability.” We naturally decided that the issue needed further dissection. Go read her full essay, then return and give our latest episode a listen.
Special thanks to MK Creative Arts for the audio editing.